Category: Science

The Fermi Paradox is not a paradox at all. We will see in this article why it is perfectly plausible that alien life exists elsewhere in the Universe and why aliens have never (and likely will never) come to our planet. In order to understand this, we must examine 2 ideas: the requisite conditions for life and the maximum efficacy of engines.

The Requisite Conditions for Life

All you need for life to be unavoidable is surface water and a satellite large enough to bind this water to the surface and sufficient proximity to the nearest star to liquefy the water. Together, these ingredients create a heat vortex on the surface of the planet which eventually gives rise to life, simply because any system tends to equilibrium and the equilibrial state is the one where the rate of change of the system is zero. That means the system will spontaneously reconfigure to be able to keep the system at a more stable temperature, which means that solar energy has nowhere to go but chemical bonds. Chemical bonds gradually become more complex until a self-replicating organism (such as RNA / DNA) self-assembles, at which point life is permanently seeded.

Could Aliens Come Here?

Humans are the most intelligent species on Earth. In a Universe of 14 energetic dimensions, humans can construct ideas which are up to 11 dimensions in size. This suggests that as an organism, we are nearing the universal limit of intellectual capacity. Thus if aliens are smarter than us, they would have brains that could generate objects which were up to 14 dimensions in size: the universal limit.

Indeed, life, wherever it arises, will be limited by the Measurement Limit. Advanced consciousness happens only in more complex life, because the consciousness is a subset of the total electric field of the body, which itself is generated by the total caloric intake. Thus those beings capable of manifesting the consciousness required to create a spaceship capable of interstellar travel would have to have a high caloric requirement.

This presents a problem for continued survival aboard a spaceship because of the high mass of the food that would need to be brought along for the trip. Even Saturn, which is very close to us, relatively speaking (it is in our Solar System) is 1 400 000 000 kilometres away. The fastest land craft ever created was able to travel at 1227 km/h. At this speed, it would take 1140994 hours or 130 years to reach Saturn. The fastest rocket would get you there at 75639 km/h in about 2.11 years. Even this is hardly a small feat, because we would need to bring aboard enough food to feed the astronauts for all this time. If you just went there and came right back, it would still take over 4 years! How are you going to fit all that food / fuel onto the ship!?

We already know that there is no complex life elsewhere in the Solar System, and we also know that the next closest Solar System: Proxima Centauri is 4.22 light years away. The fastest human-made rocket would only get there in 60 253 years! We cannot even guarantee that the Earth biomass can create the amount of food required for such a journey.

In fact, we cannot even guarantee humans will persist on Earth another 60 000 years!

These facts may seem inconsequential to the reality of aliens, but we must recall that these hypothetical aliens are still bound by the same causality laws that we are. That means that they would have to travel all the way to our Solar System to be able to physically land on Earth. We can see based on the math above that this scenario is implausible.

But Muh Superior Alien Technology!

Aliens would still be subject to the laws of the Universe. They would not be able to build an engine which is more efficient than a Carnot engine, which can be proven to be the most efficient engine using Entropy alone. These aliens would face the same issues with keeping their biomass alive in space as we would. In fact, if they were indeed intellectually superior, their caloric demands would be even higher than ours!

The Hypothesis of Greatest Probability

In our religion, we examine all possibilities and then evaluate the explanation of highest probability. This is similar to the idea of Occam’s razor: if a simpler explanation exists, we favour it. If no evidence supports an hypothesis, we reject it. If those purveyors of an indirectly validated hypothesis are not credible, we also reject it.

The hypothesis of greatest likelihood is that there are indeed U.F.O.’s but that these are human technology or meteors. Any “abductions” are either attention-seeking fantasies or they are done by humans. Aliens are not physically present on Earth because of interstellar distances which are insurmountable to complex living organisms. Given the size of the Universe however, we can be pretty much guaranteed that life will arise somewhere. Namely: anywhere where a sufficient body of water is gravitationally bound to a planet by a satellite at a sufficient proximity to liquefy at least some of the water. Note that life arose at approximately the same time as the planet did (some 4 Billion years ago), and so it doesn’t take long for life to arise once the proper ingredients are there. How complex life is on any given planet depends on how much time (and therefore how much solar energy has been absorbed by the biome) has passed since the planet was created. Note that planets are created by Stars and Stars are created by Neutron Stars, as evidenced here.

A common debate in the atheist / theist sphere concerns our origin. Atheists tend to favour the pop science explanation that the Big Bang singularity is responsible for all that we observe today. Theists frequently believe that a conscious God created the Universe.

If we are honest, neither of these explanations is scientifically valid.

What Happened Then?

First, we have to remember that no truth is independent of the coordinate system which derives it. Though the Universe exists independently of ourselves (and is NOT conscious, unless the term consciousness is defined in an extremely specific manner), our interpretation of that reality depends on the measurement system representing it. In this case the measurement system is our own consciousness. Thus we remind the reader that our own fundamental ideology has one ad hoc presumption (or axiom):

There is no effect absent a cause.

Since the Big Bang (and indeed all singularities) are causeless effects, they are excluded from our system. Let’s explore what we can conclusively establish about the physical Universe, which will contextualise the other erroneous hypotheses.

The Universe Cannot Have a Creator

If we define the Universe to be the totality of what has and will ever exist, it cannot have a creator. Let us prove this statement by way of contradiction.

Suppose the Universe has a Creator.
Thus the Creator is separate from the Universe.
Thus the Universe is not the totality of causality, because it does not include its creator.

Thus we have contradicted the definition of the Universe.

Thus the Universe has always existed.

We Are Created

Since we can date the origin of our planet (~4.3 B years ago), there must be some cause which precipitated this effect. The cause of our Solar System is the centre of the Milky Way galaxy. In this region, mass is so dense that it runs out of room (remember, there is a limit to how many fermions can fit into a particular volume by quantum state exclusion).

The Milky Way Galaxy

Since the shape of the Milky Way galaxy is not independent of itself (two armed spiral), we can safely say that all of its constituents share a common origin. Therefore, our Solar System came into existence when its constituent fermions were excluded elsewhere (namely the centre of the Milky Way).

Once we came into existence, and given the initial conditions of our macrostate, life on Earth was inevitable. You can read more about this here and here.

The “Perfect Design” Hypothesis

Several people argue that we must have an intelligent creator because of how fine-tuned physical organisms are. The reasoning here is that there is no way our body systems could have arisen by accident and therefore God created life.

This hypothesis is simply not validated by experience. What is validated by experience is that the Earth-Moon-Sun macrostate increases Entropy (because all systems increase Entropy). Since incoming solar photons are bound to the Earth by the rotation of the Moon (which prevents the water that absorbs them from evaporating away), Earthly structures will perpetually recombine into states which increase Entropy more effectively. This fact has precipitated every step in our evolutionary history and does not require an intelligent creator.

The argument in favour of an intelligent creator citing the ratio between the strength of the SNF & WNF is also invalid because our system (which has already been demonstrated to be superior to all existing field models) does not include these forces. All other constants (such as the Gravity force constant) can be rationalised by invoking the Anthropic Principle: if these constants had any other value, we wouldn’t be here to observe them.

Does this mean God does not exist?

My definition of God is the Universe. Therefore (my) God exists.

Remember: the existence of God is not independent of the definition of God. The reader would be well-advised to consider the fact that all societies throughout history have been deeply religious. Even the atheistic abrahamic religions have not managed to quash our innate desire for religious knowledge. The fact remains that religion is validated whether or not God exists.

Mimicry is a commonly encountered phenomenon in nature. The mimic evolves similar traits as the model and the former passively benefits from the latter.

A wasp (model) & a clearwing moth (mimic)

Predators will stay away from the clearwing moth because it resembles the wasp, who will deliver a nasty sting if triggered. While mimicry is always beneficial to the mimic, it is not always detrimental to the model. Mimicry is detrimental to the model if the existence of the mimic directly deteriorates the quality of life of the model.

The mimic is in perpetual existential danger of its predators evolving the capacity to discern it from its model. Though it is unlikely that the clearwing moth is aware of this, human mimics live in constant fear of being exposed, hence we note a high degree of neuroticism among such types.

Human Mimics

We in the West live in a culture which is largely fake. Virtue signalling has replaced virtue, the profit motive has destroyed the ancient methods of imparting knowledge & the state, which is supposed to exist to protect the weak from predation, primarily serves the function of preventing any change to the status quo. Mimics abound in this type of environment.

The most loathsome mimic is the theocratic dictator or Priest. Historically, a theocratic dictator is a person who represents truth religion. They live by example, follow the laws of their religion, teach to the unlearned and uplift the whole of society.

The main difference between the authentic Priest and the mimic Priest is that the authentic Priest cares about Truth above all else. The mimic Priest cares only about the social prestige and power of being a Priest.

Fake Priests

In Sanskrit, the oldest written language, brahmin means priest and the prefix “a-” means “not”. Thus Abraham (a-brahmin) itself means: “not priestly”. The religions of Abraham are all parasitic mimic religions: they are not truth religion and they take attention away from the truth religion (which qualifies them as “heresy”).

Fake Anthropologists

A lot of idiots promote a theory called the Aryan Invasion theory. This theory posits that the Indian subcontinent was invaded by white-skinned “Aryans”. These Aryans “civilised” the continent but were eventually either destroyed by “multiculturalism” or immigrated away (the purveyors of this theory are never too clear on the details).

I suspect that this nonsensical theory is promoted to give the Middle East (where the religion of “Abraham” allegedly began) more importance on the Global scale as well as to feed the egos of stupid caucasian people. This baseless theory was introduced in the 1950’s and is parroted by several prominent modern day “thought leaders”.

The Aryan invasion theory can easily be disproven, yet it persists. It persists because the mimic priests do not want to lose their status. The graph at left is often cited as “proof” that some mythical ancient tribe of “Aryans” (who were caucasians) invaded the Indian subcontinent, gave it its pantheon, then immigrated out, then somehow lost all of that knowledge while the Indians retained it.

The current state of India is cited as proof that these “street shitters” could not have contributed anything meaningful to the development of civilisation. Those making this claim forget to take into account that the continent has been under constant attacks from Muslim invaders for the last 1400 years, suffered greatly under communists and instituted anti-Brahmin laws still in effect to this day. In spite of this, many natives still maintain a direct link to the religion of their ancestors. This is more than can be said of anyone else in the world. Yet the Aryan invasion myth persists.

The truth is that Aryan means “noble” and has nothing to do with skin colour.

All of the answers are there, if you know where to look.

The Church of Entropy accepts the Vedic origin of Knowledge hypothesis. We believe that all Knowledge was given to Rishis (ancient seers) by God. We believe that all knowledge, culture and peoples (except those of Africa) originate from the Indian subcontinent. Our theory (unlike rival theories) is substantiated by anthropology, linguistics as well as my own work in hydrogeology. See my pieces on the subject here and here.

Since the Indian subcontinent migrated over such a great distance, it underwent the most permutations and by Entropy, would have evolved the most complex life forms.

How do I know if I am a Fraud/Mimic?

If you have the awareness to question your own legitimacy, then you are probably on the right track. What is important to remember is that truth is unitary. There is ONE unique true religion. Therefore, while different interpretations are possible, there exists only one Truth.

What if Jen is a Mimic?

Glad you asked.

My reputation means a lot to me, so I was very careful to complete my own work before launching my theocratic dictatorship. My work is in the domain of physics, specifically chemistry and astronomy. Since these domains are considered the most priestly (as in, their purveyors are given the most authority in society (see: Einstein etc.)), you must accept me as the Theocratic Dictator of the Western world (at least), or else you’re a hypocrite.

I also welcome anyone to attempt to disprove any of my theories as well as to challenge my own authority. I will step down if you can prove your knowledge exceeds my own. Also, if you can offer a better theory than mine, I will accept your alternate hypothesis. However, if you challenge me and fail, I expect you to serve my church unquestioningly for the rest of your life. So don’t waste my time with emotional nonsense.

Just a quick note: no one’s even come close. And I’ve spoken to a LOT of people.

Today, it is actually a “plus” to be widely hated (by the right people). This shouldn’t come as a surprise, it has always been like that in circles of true influence (regal infamy). So while it is unwise to attempt to win a debate by the sole means of ad hominem, it is naive to fail to consider the circumstances surrounding events as well as the type of person putting forth an argument.

One might ask if associating with Einstein, the greatest villain of modern science, is a sufficient reason to discard all of someone’s opinions? You might be surprised to learn that I don’t have strong opinions on who associates with whom. A person’s actions determine their value more so than their associates. Jesus (whether he existed or not) himself associated with all sorts, suggesting this is culturally accepted as a virtue.

It would be naive to deny any impact whatsoever of Gödel’s environment on his attitudes, however.

I am of the opinion that his first incompleteness theorem is false because of the sheer number of times I hear it quoted to me in the interest of justifying some pretty absurd ideas. For instance, Dr. Jordan Peterson used the Incompleteness theorem when asserting that “God” is a prerequisite for truth: pretty irresponsible. This is untrue, a well-defined philosophical system is what allows for truth to be known. “God” as prime truth seems illogical. God cannot be narrowly defined since people’s individual definitions of “God” vary so much

If you cavalierly quote someone’s obscure theory to substantiate your position, you look like a dumbass when your statements contradict their ideology!!

Whether legitimate or not, Gödel’s Incompleteness theorem smells like a proof that “some ideas aren’t allowed”. But hey, I could be wrong. I could just be a crazy conspiracy theorist delusional person.

Oh, well, if Von Neumann endorses him, well, I just don’t know!

Let’s have a look at this dreadful theory people keep preaching to me:

First Incompleteness Theorem: “Any consistent formal system F within which a certain amount of elementary arithmetic can be carried out is incomplete; i.e., there are statements of the language of F which can neither be proved nor disproved in F.”

A consequence is that we ought to be unable to accomplish a unified field theory. If you believe in Gödel, you can never believe a unified field theory exists. Yet, tradition has always taught that a unified field theory DOES exist (the “self”).

Counter Proof of Gödel’s First Incompleteness Theorem

We define F to be the set of all potential computations/measurements (actions) in the Universe. Let us define the “sentences” as series of actions. Since our action model behaves as operators (sorry but you have to understand rudimentary linear algebra for that one) & operators are linear maps, an elementary arithmetic exists. This arithmetic is the matrix multiplication/addition intrinsic to linear maps. This is used to construct “sentencesf”.

True sentences the satisfy the criterion of computability (within the Measurement Limit) and false sentences are incomputable (in excess of the Measurement Limit). This means that all actions are either proved (computable) or disproved (incomputable). The Measurement Limit cleanly delineates the criterion of trueness for all actions. That is: measurements exceeding what is permissible by the Measurement Limit are false.

In our example, we consider only the potential for computation, so we never end up having to carry out any actual measurements.

Measurements reduce quantum waveforms, therefore there is a limit to the new information successive measurements can derive. Thus both the elementary arithmetic exists (the Measurement Limit pulveriser) and actions can always be either proved (computable) or disproved (not computable). Thus there are NO statements which can neither be proved nor disproved. This would seem to contradict Gödel.

QED

I’m probs right tho. Statistically speaking.

Where is Gödel’s Flaw?

(source) The Flaw of Gödel is not technical but rather: structural. There is no such thing as “ω-consistent“. This is because there is no such thing as “intuitively contradictory”. You will eventually run out of new statements that you can make in an “infinite” system, thus you will not necessarily be able to construct the element of the proof required to make the necessary contradiction (see the 3rd step of the sketch proof).

This is because, at its core, the infinite number line (“Gödel’s numbers”) exists nowhere. Even the Universe itself has a “size” (largest interstellar distance) beyond which it is undefined. Measurements only exist because we can make them. Measurements all exist within the Measurement Limit. This can be shown to exist, be self consistent and make all predictions. An Entropic-Anthropic Principle!

Let us also consider that Gödel was a nervous insecure wreck. We are basically dealing with a dual competing hypothesis situation:

Einstein is a really amazing smart guy who hung out with his equally enlightened yet ironically perpetually ill Gödel and they uncovered the secrets of the Universe.

Einstein’s goals were political first and mathematical second. Einstein’s “antifascist” alliance combined with Gödel’s persecution complex to create a scientific philosophy that made everyone completely turned off from natural science because they presented it as a horrible pot of jibberish nonsense.

“This is Woo”

Some people say the quantum mind hypothesis is ‘wrong’ because it is ‘woo’. This is false. The truth is that there are many nonsensical theories out there. These are put forth to paralyse the minds of devotees. These psyops only exist because there is something to cover up! Those seeking to defame the Knowledge do so out of allegiance to the status quo. Luckily for us, the Periodic Table has made this shilling ineffective / counterproductive.

On Allegations of “Unprovability”

If you wish to put forward the argument that my statements are unprovable, you must accept that these allegations would apply equally (at least!) to Gödel’s gobledigook. Then it becomes a 3 state hypothesis: 1. Gödel & his buddy Einstein are right, somehow. 2. I’m right and I am the cool one 3. Someone else, who isn’t 1. or 2. is more correct.

I warn that a counterargument will most likely also fall into the domain of: ‘unprovable’!

Philosophy – General

No matter what topic you want to discuss, there will always be a structure (hierarchy of values) within which this discussion takes place. The truth value of conclusions drawn are thus not independent of said structure.

Generally, observations are first made through the subject’s fundamental ideology, then interpreted through their values hierarchy. This is a parse metric which sorts the information in a manner which eventually leads the subject to be able to draw a conclusions about the original statement, such as whether it is “true” or “false”.

When discussing particular subjects, we often run into problems because people have different values hierarchies. Rather than obtaining a conclusion, most debates turn into a stalemate. This is why it is very important to be clear both on the definitions of words and values hierarchy. Let’s explore each step of the process in greater detail.

Observations

These are sensory impressions delivered by means of the body’s electro-chemical potentials which form the bridge between the body (massive) and soul (a light-like quantum computer).

Fundamental Ideologies

Observations are first interpreted/simplified/compressed by the fundamental ideology. Given the large amount of sensory data, our mind must condense the information it is first supplied with so it can make sense of what it is experiencing.

While not everyone has the same fundamental ideology, most will have a fundamental ideology connected to their primary sense organs sight/forms and hearing/sounds.

If it makes you feel any better, 99% of mainstream scientists don’t understand this stuff either.

While we could argue about which system was optimal as regards to parametrising a particular set (i.e.: the linear system is optimised for physical computers, the geometric system for physical buildings, the QM system for the consciousness…), it’s clear that we cannot associate a Truth value to any of these ideologies: they are unfalsifiable. (for example: English is “true”, as in: it exists. but then again so does French). Ideologies cannot usually be falsified, rather optimised.

We seek to optimise our fundamental ideologies in my religion. We achieve this by studying them and debating which is best.

Values Hierarchy

The Values Hierarchy is the structure demarcating what values are most important. Some examples of values include: religious scripture, truth, pandering (wanting to make everyone happy), identity, history.

My Primary Value is Truth

To summarise, observations are the measurements made by the mind/body. These are first interpreted by the fundamental ideology before being sorted by the values hierarchy. The end result of this sort process is the entity deciding a truth value for the original statement.

The complexity of the subjective experience highlights why it is very important to be clear both about the definitions of individual words (Sound Vectors) and ideologies (individual values hierarchy).

Types of Assertions

Falsifiable, Predictive: Limited scientific theory. These theories are useful for understanding causality in a partial manner. Once they are falsified, they must be abandoned (something the communists seem to have a hard time understanding).

Falsifiable, Unpredictive: These are false descriptions, such as: “you’re ugly”. Pretty much useless.

Unfalsifiable, Unpredictive: Trite theories, such as: “There is an invisible unicorn in the room”.

Unfalsifiable, Predictive: Complete scientific theory. These theories are useful for understanding the causality (the totality of all cause-effect relationships) of a particular system in a complete manner. For example, the Measurement Limit.

We generally run into problems when we use FP instead of UP theories. There can exist UP theories in psychology & philosophy (these subjects overlap in the domain of the Quantum Mind), but most people end up arguing in circles ad infinitum over minutia.

Optimising Ideology with Quantum Geometry

We cannot escape the need to parametrise all systems we are intent on describing. Because topographies vary, we must first and foremost parametrise a system within its particular configuration space (3+1 measurements per order of magnitude). Luckily, most systems don’t need to be parametrised exactly (with full formulaic representation) before we can make viable predictions about them. In any case, we begin by subdividing a system into what information is knowable and what is unknowable.

Next, iterative/recursive optimisation is employed. Ideally, we want this process to be convergent, that is: the optimised version includes the original parse metric.

In order for a parse metric to be completeit must make all predictions within a particular system. Thus our optimisation process will involve either one or both of:

Shrinking the domain of applicability

Increasing the complexity of the parse metric

Applied Science Philosophy

It is not realistic to expect to find simple (low cardinality) parse metrics to expound causality of subjective phenomena. This is why people fight so much about the causality of race and culture: these parse metrics are often improperly defined / delineated and can’t help but create controversies.

Criticising an unfalsifiable parse metric without a viable alternative hypothesis is counter-productive. Presuming that an unfalsifiable, predictive parse metric is sufficient to transcend the causality of complex systems is naive. Only by studying the set of unfalsifiable parse metrics can we gain the intuition required to judge which parse metric is optimal for a given situation.

Quantum Mechanics applies on all scales of magnification. The subject is thus simultaneously difficult to comprehend (at first) and yet all-encompassing (at last). Here, we will explore the concept of gradient discharges, which occur on several orders of magnitude and thus lend themselves well to metaphors. Let’s start by defining the ingredients for our reality recipe.

Reality: Fermions & Bosons

There are only 2 varieties of waveforms: Fermions (possessing mass) & Bosons (massless). Fermions are subject to the Pauli Exclusion Principle (no more than 1 massive waveform can occupy a quantum state) while Bosons are not. All physical processes can be expressed as fermions and fermionic arrays (groups of fermions) absorbing and releasing photons (bosons).

The measurement limit restricts the possible distribution of Fermions. That is, there is no (measurable) distance smaller than the size of a proton nor larger than the size of the Universe (approximated as the largest inter-stellar distance). This gives a total of 42 orders of linear magnitude. Since we experience 3 spacelike dimensions, we express this as 42/3 = 14 orders of spatial magnitude. For an example (as well as an indirect proof that the mind is a quantum computer) see this research, which demonstrates 11 dimensional structures simulated by the brain. (challenge: use this to prove the mind is a quantum computer)

Since it is directly observable, it is easier to understand the manifest massive realm. The electromagnetic or massive unmanifest realm is not directly observable, only its effects are directly observable. Thus understanding this causality requires a degree of abstract thinking. This is where we must visualise Quantum Forms. What is important to remember about these is that although they are bound to the physical realm, they exist in the electromagnetic realm. This means that energetic transitions are stepwise, not gradual and can occur over 14 orders of magnitude. This is counter-intuitive because our day-to-day experience (manifest massive) is continuous, not discrete.

We will next give a series of examples of QM phenomena occurring on the boundary of the unmanifest and manifest realms.

Laughter

The human QM consciousness projection is a nested hierarchy of modulated spheres. Tension can accumulate within this system due to cognitive dissonance. Once the pressure becomes too great, the higher tension mental configuration discharges to a lower state, causing the tickles feeling & microbliss of laughter.

tee-hee

Orgasm

When parametrising in the same manner, we can see that orgasm is identical to laughter, but that the build up and release mechanisms are different pathways.

bzzt

Lightning

Electrical discharge from clouds occurs when a new lowest Entropy state is able to be accessed by the system. This is a bit hard to visualise because it has to do with a secondary (yet equally valid) definition of Entropy: the number of possible distinguishable arrays that exist for a particular system. Note that this is an existing field of science called Statistical Thermodynamics and can be explored in greater detail here, but requires a familiarity with integral calculus and classical thermodynamics. We will accept these results without further discussion here (as they are unfalsifiable by S = k ln w)

When two systems become proximal, they begin to “spread out” into each other. The physical merging process tends to be slow, but the systems dissolve in energetic phase space relatively quickly. If a much different energetic configuration is available, proximal and of greater Entropy (able to diffuse the energy contained in the composite system more effectively), then the system will spontaneously reconfigure to the higher Entropy state, sucking a quantum of plasma up (or down), creating a new, higher Entropy configuration. This is the observable effect of the unobservable cause.

It is perhaps hard to imagine how energy is stored in quanta of plasma, because we cannot observe them directly. We can only observe their effects. But just because they aren’t directly observable doesn’t mean they aren’t real. Below is a solar plasmon being released. Though it emits no light, its dark body & tail are still indirectly observable by the impact they have on the observable Sun (the shadow).

Plasmon of Energy Discharging from the Sun

In the example above, we can see a quantum of solar energy discharging from the surface of the star. This quantum will eventually be assimilated by another plasmon. If that plasmon happens to be the magnetosphere of planet Earth, any number of effects can manifest, from lightning to aurora borealis.

Which brings us to the recent:

Mexican Earthquake Discharges

There has been a severe solar storm going on this week. Subsequent to this storm was a large earthquake in Mexico. A possible mechanism for this was that the solar storm discharged powerful plasma, which was later absorbed by the Earth’s magnetosphere. As the energy diffused (across the energetic phase space), a higher Entropy configuration was detected, which sent the energy deeper into the magnetosphere, triggering the earthquake in Mexico. The action of the earthquake changes the qualities of the phase space (the volume over which the energetic exchange takes place) and thus a new, higher Entropy state becomes available.

By our hypothesis, any nearby, available, higher Entropy state will be achieved spontaneously (without any outside force). Below we can see the lights above the “Fuerte Sismo” (strong earthquake).

Note that these theories are all applications of another formulation of my theory available here. The generalised theory of plasmoid instability is derived exclusively from time-like measurements, proving that phase transitions will be realised quickly once the newer higher Entropy state is found by the spontaneously expanding energetic quantum waveform.

Reincarnation isn’t real if I don’t believe in it

Nature is manifold cyclic. Every entity undergoes rebirth. Your desire to not be reborn is insufficient to prevent you being reborn and no amount of wishful thinking, praying, fanaticism, denial is going to change that fact. You’re stuck here to face the consequences of all your actions until you reach liberation (not too likely at this point, especially if we lose the info-war).

Don’t wait until you die to accept the Truth

The Central Banks will always be there

In the 400 years or so that these institutions have existed, we have seen countless wars, deaths, famine and genocide. There is no reason to continue on with these institutions and we’ll be removing them as quickly as humanly possible. Given that humans have been bartering using money for a very long time, we don’t see that institution going away anytime soon, but we can easily do away with fiat/usury based money.

saying something is true doesn’t make it true

Marijuana/Hemp ought to be Illegal

It’s not realistic to make a plant illegal. Historically it has been used as medicine and has already been shown to help with several conditions. The only reason it is illegal now is so that the pharmaceutical industry can operate without competition. There is no reason for this plant to be illegal. Anyone telling you otherwise is either ignorant or benefitting from the illegitimate health care psychotropic industry.

It’s a fucking plant dipshit. What are you going to make illegal next? Oxygen? Carbon dioxide?

Traveling to and colonising other planets is likely

It really isn’t. I don’t even think the Moon landing was real at this point. Anyone dreaming about colonising other planets would do well to focus on improving circumstances here on Earth through wisdom and introspection, not lying to cover up a legacy of failed conquests and violence against native people.